Feb
8
2010
ADL’s Foxman Gives Obama ‘F’ Grade for Accomplishment
Sunday, 07 Feb 2010 03:36 PM
By: Jim Meyers
The Anti-Defamation League’s National Director Abraham Foxman gives President Barack Obama an “F” – a failing “report card” grade after his first year in office for his “accomplishments” in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In an exclusive Newsmax interview, Foxman also criticized the Obama administration for failing to show leadership in supporting reformers in Iran in the wake of their recent presidential election. He also warns about the growing threat posed by homegrown Islamic terrorists and sleeper cells in the United States.
Editor’s Note: See Newsmax.TV video with Abraham Foxman below.
The Anti-Defamation League, or ADL, the nation’s premier civil rights organization, was founded in 1913 to battle defamation and discrimination against Jews, but its scope has broadened and today it is at the forefront fighting against bigotry of all kinds.
Foxman has led the ADL for 23 years and is known around the world as one the United States’ most respected Jewish-American leaders. He is the recipient of many awards, including the French Legion of Honor, France’s highest civilian award.
In a sit-down interview with Foxman conducted this weekend, Newsmax.TV’s Kathleen Walter asked Foxman how he would rate Obama’s handling of the Israeli-Palestinian situation.
“I would give him an A for effort, a C-minus for strategy, and an F for accomplishment,” Foxman responded without hesitation.
“I think the intentions were good. I think the strategy to put pressure on Israel, to put forward the settlement issue as a litmus test, not to put pressure on the Arab countries, not to put pressure on the Palestinians, not only failed but it set the peace process back.
“In the past administration, under Bush, [the November 2007 peace conference at] Annapolis brought the two parties together. They talked about all kinds of issues while settlements were being built. And now for us to get to where we were before will take a great deal of effort.”
Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has refused to restart negotiations with Israel unless certain preconditions are met, including a complete halt to Jewish settlement construction. Walter asked Foxman what the Obama administration can do to move the process along.
“I think the president and his administration should put more pressure on the Palestinians, embarrass them a little bit,” he said. “Why are they making preconditions? If peace is important, why is there a need to set all these preconditions which didn’t exist before?
“I would like to see the administration also move a little more directly on the Arab states, on the moderate Arab states, on the Saudis, on the Egyptians, on the UAE, for them to put pressure on the Palestinians to go back to the table. There’s also the issue of Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
“I believe the president has a bully pulpit. He has a very clear moral voice. I haven’t heard it in terms of the world community singling out Israel. It would be nice to hear it publicly. I think that may bring back the balance and maybe move the peace process closer.”
Foxman’s impatience and disappointment in Obama seems to reflect a growing unease among American Jews about the president’s Middle East policies.
Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, expressed concern about Obama in a June interview with Newsmaxs Chief Washington Correspondent Ronald Kessler.
“There’s a lot of questioning going on about what he really believes and what does he really stand for,” Hoenlein said.
“[Jews] are genuinely very concerned,” he added.
On the homefront, the ADL has grown increasingly concerned about domestic terrorism. A recent report by the Anti-Defamation League’s magazine, ADL on the Frontline, warned of a growing threat from American Muslim extremists.
In the past two years, the report noted, more than 30 of these extremists have been arrested on various terror-related charges including providing material support to terrorists and plotting to plant bombs in the United States.
When Newsmax’s Walter asked about this worrisome threat, Foxman said, “There‘s no question that there are sleeper cells in this country.”
“There’s no question that fundamentalist Islam has targeted the U.S. The 9/11 [attacks] on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon did not begin with flying planes and box cutters. It began with hate, hateful words, teachings of hate.
“And we know throughout the world, including the United States, there are individuals who have been taught to hate, who have been inspired to hate, who have been taught to do violence, and we know they have been placed in various places around the United States to act at certain moments.
“It is a clear and present danger which I think we are finally becoming aware of, that we need to focus on and take seriously.”
Turning to Iran, Walter referred to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s threat to wipe Israel “off the map,” and asked Foxman what options Obama has in dealing with the Islamic Republic and its nuclear development program.
“One of the options that needs to be on the table, as long as a sovereign state is threatening the destruction of another state time and time again, is a military option,” Foxman said.
“It should be the last option, but I don’t think anything else will work unless the Iranians understand how serious would be their consequences.”
When violence broke out in Iran following disputed elections, “the United States hesitated,” Foxman added. “We weren’t out there very clearly in support of the reformers and all those who were ready to risk their lives.
“I think the United States needs to show leadership. Secretary of State Clinton said we need crippling sanctions. Whether we get Russia or China with us or not, the United States should push forward aggressively in the United Nations. And if they can’t get the United Nations, then bring together those who are willing to stand up and say to Iran, this is not the way.
“Other courses of action may succeed if there is a military option. If there is no military option, why should the Iranians even bother to listen to all kinds of verbal threats?
“World peace is being threatened. It’s not only Israel. Israel is the first calling card. It’s the moderate Arab states. It’s the Persian Gulf. It’s Saudi Arabia. It’s Europe. And eventually, it’s the United States and its relationship to the world.”
Walter referred to the June 2009 incident at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., when anti-Semite James von Brunn shot and killed a security guard, and asked if there is growing anti-Semitism in the U.S.
“The United States is probably the least of all countries that suffer anti-Semitism, but we’re not immune,” Foxman responded.
“We have measured attitudes in this country, and the attitude 40 years ago was that 30 percent of the American people were infected with anti-Semitism. Today we’re about 12 to 14 percent. It’s an improvement, but that still means 30 or 40 million Americans are infected with the disease of anti-Semitism.
“Most people don’t act on it. What we saw at the Holocaust Museum are manifestations where there’s anger, there’s hatred that moves to the surface. So far what we’ve seen are lone wolves, people acting on their own. But it’s there. The infection is there.
“What the trigger is for these individuals who have harbored this bigotry, this prejudice, to act out violently, we don’t know. Whether it’s unemployment, whether it’s blaming the government, whether it’s because they’re angry because there’s an African-American president, we don’t know what it is.
“But it may trigger and therefore we’re a lot more concerned about the safety of synagogues and Jewish institutions than we have been in a long time.”
Foxman also said the “greatest threat to freedom, to democracy, to our values, is fundamentalist, extremist Islam.”
Feb
8
2010
After Liberals, Sarah Palin Calls For Sanctioning Rahm Emanuel
February 8, 2010 by Personal Liberty News Desk
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been in the news lately with some progressives calling for his dismissal and blaming him for trying to accommodate the conservatives. However, a new revelation has railed some GOP members.
The Wall Street Journal has recently reported that in a closed-door meeting last summer, Obama’s top aide called liberal special-interest groups that wanted to run ads against conservative Democrats who did not support healthcare reform “f—— retarded,” according to media reports.
When informed about the comment, Sarah Palin, whose child has Down syndrome, posted a note on Facebook alleging Emanuel’s words amounted to a “racial slur.”
“Rahm’s slur on all God’s children with cognitive and developmental disabilities is unacceptable,” she wrote, adding that President Obama should “show decency” by removing the Chicago politician from his inner circle.
In the meantime, Emanuel reportedly called Tim Shriver, chairman and CEO of the Special Olympics, to apologize.
Last month, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee urged its members not to support the former Illinois congressman if he runs for public office again. It said Emanuel allowed the Democrats to give up the public option, helped to put together deals with drug companies in exchange for their support and argued against a bigger stimulus package.
Feb
8
2010
White House announces televised health meet
Tell Congress Wake Up America, YOU Can Still Stop Obamacare
FaxDC.com wants to send this urgent and personalized Blast Fax message to all 535 members of the House and Senate for YOU.
Alert: (Politico) President Barack Obama is planning to host a televised meeting with Republican and Democratic congressional leaders on health care reform.
The Feb. 25 meeting is an attempt to reach across the aisle but not a signal that the president plans to start over, as Republicans have demanded, a White House official said.
“I want to come back [after the Presidents Day congressional recess] and have a large meeting – Republicans and Democrats – to go through, systematically, all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward,” Obama said in an interview with Katie Couric during CBS’s Super Bowl pre-game show Sunday.
Obama said he wants to “look at the Republican ideas that are out there.”
“If we can go, step by step, through a series of these issues and arrive at some agreements, then, procedurally, there’s no reason why we can’t do it a lot faster the process took last year,” he said.
In a statement, the official said, “What the president will not do is let this moment slip away. He hopes to have Republican support in doing so – but he is going to move forward on health reform.”
Obama first suggested reopening talks with Republicans during his State of the Union address last month, and reiterated the call at a Democratic fundraiser Thursday, but the White House had kept details of his plan under wraps until Sunday.
The idea has been met previously with skepticism by the congressional leaders of both parties. Republicans say they see little room for compromise because the bill should be scrapped, while Democrats argue they have already tried a bipartisan approach, but failed.
But since the Democratic loss in the Massachusetts Senate race, Obama has been forced to rework his legislative strategy – both by striking a more bipartisan tone, and returning to his campaign pledge of providing more transparency. He’s been dogged by questions about why he failed to live up to his campaign promise of televising the health care negotiations on C-SPAN.
The half-day meeting will take place at Blair House, and be broadcast live, presumably by C-SPAN, making it the first televised White House meeting on health care reform since a forum last March.
“While he’s been very clear that he supports the House and Senate bills, if Republicans or anyone else has a plan for protecting Americans from insurance company abuses, lowering costs, reducing prescription drug prices for seniors, making coverage more secure, and offering affordable options to those without coverage, he’s anxious to see it and debate the merits of it,” the White House official said.
Legislators from both parties applauded the meeting, while holding to their positions on the health care legislation.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in a statement reacting to Obama’s call for what Reid called “a bipartisan, bicameral health insurance reform meeting”:
“Senate Democrats join with the president in reaffirming our commitment to seeking a bipartisan solution to health reform. We have promoted the pursuit of a bipartisan approach to health reform from day one. As we continue our work to fix our broken health care system, Senate Democrats will not relent on our commitment to protecting consumers from insurance company abuses, reducing health care costs, saving Medicare and cutting the deficit.”
“Obviously, I am pleased that the White House finally seems interested in a real, bipartisan conversation on health care,” said House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Oh.) in a statement Sunday. He added: “The problem with the Democrats’ health care bills is not that the American people don’t understand them; the American people do understand them, and they don’t like them.”
The announcement of the televised meeting comes as Democrats have expressed growing confusion about how the White House plans to deliver a health care reform bill this year, after two weeks of inconsistent statements and little hands-on involvement by Obama.
Democrats on Capitol Hill and beyond said last week they had no clear understanding of the White House strategy and were growing impatient with Obama’s reluctance to lead the way toward a legislative solution.
The bipartisan talks are the latest iteration of Obama’s plan to restart health care, which has been stalled in the more than two weeks since Democrats lost the Massachusetts Senate race. In that time, Obama or his top advisers have talked of breaking the bill into smaller parts, keeping it together in one comprehensive package, putting it at the back of legislative line and needing to “punch it through” Congress.
Obama told Couric that he did not regret holding back on health reform to pursue a jobs agenda.
“Keep in mind: Jobs were my number-one priority last year,” he said. “Do I wish we could have done it faster, that it hadn’t been so painful slow through the legislative process? Absolutely. But it was the right thing to do then. It continues to be the right thing.”
As for meeting with Republicans, Obama on Thursday described the “next step” as sitting down with the GOP, Democrats and health care experts. “Let’s just go through these bills – their ideas, our ideas – let’s walk through them in a methodical way so that the American people can see and compare what makes the most sense,” Obama said.
At the same fundraiser, Obama seemed to acknowledge for the first time that Congress may well decide to scrap health care altogether – an admission that blunted his repeated and emphatic vows to finish the job. The White House said Obama’s remarks were misinterpreted and he intends to finish health reform.
Speaking to Couric, Obama acknowledged public unhappiness with all the special deals in the legislation. “What we have to do is just make sure that it is a much more clear and transparent process,” he said. “I’ve got to push Congress on that.”
DO NOT BE SILENCED BY ANYONE STAND UP! MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!
TAKE ACTION: Send YOUR blast FAX to ALL 535 Congressman NOW!
To visit FaxDC.com, click here: http://faxdc.com/
To view Your Fax Message, click here: http://faxdc.com/healthcare.htm
To Fax Blast Capitol Hill, click here: http://faxdc.com/healthorder.htm
Be part of the FaxDC.com Army and subscribe to the Auto-Fax Program
$ 25.00 per month at: http://www.faxdc.com/friends.htm
Thank You Patriot! Your friends at FaxDC.com
NOTE: Be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you know who supports saving America and Protecting our Middle Class. Thank you!
Feb
8
2010
NIA
February 8, 2010
NIA is betting big that this past week’s short-term decline in the paper price of silver was just a temporary wash out, before a huge surge in silver prices later in 2010.
One of NIA’s co-founders purchased on Friday, 1,300 January 2011 $20 SLV call options at a price of $0.89. For those of you not familiar with stock options, we will soon be releasing an educational report for NIA members explaining what stock options trading is all about.
With his purchase of 1,300 January 2011 $20 SLV call options, NIA’s co-founder is betting that the silver ETF, SLV will surge from its current price of $14.90 up to above $20 by the third Friday of January 2011. If (for example) on or before the third Friday of January 2011, silver is around $25 per ounce and SLV is trading for around $25 per share, the January 2011 $20 SLV call option will likely be worth around $5 per contract (each contract represents 100 shares). Our co-founder’s investment of $115,700 would be worth $650,000, yielding a $534,300 profit. If however, silver is trading below $20 per ounce come the third Friday of January 2011, this particular option would likely expire worthless and our co-founder would lose his entire $115,700 investment.
Option premiums are determined by many different factors, one of the most important being time until expiration. If SLV were to stay at around $14.90 for the next few months, the premium for the January 2011 $20 SLV call option will likely drift lower from its current price of $0.93. If however, SLV were to rise to $25 sometime this summer, long before the January 21, 2011 expiration, the premium is likely to rise a lot higher than $5.
If you have no options experience, we strongly urge you to stay away from options trading because it could be very dangerous. Be ready for NIA’s upcoming educational report on options trading. If you would like your friends and family to receive our special upcoming report, please tell them to subscribe for free at: http://inflation.us
Feb
8
2010
Obama To Increase Taxes Over The Next Decade
February 8, 2010 by Personal Liberty News Desk
To help subsidize the $3.8 trillion proposed budget for fiscal year 2011, President Obama will increase taxes on some businesses and upper-income households by nearly $2 trillion during the next decade, a plan that will still leave the nation with $8.5 trillion in added debt in 2020, The Wall Street Journal reports.
By allowing the cuts introduced by the previous administration to expire, Obama will increase taxes on families with a household annual income above $250,000 by as much as 3.6 percent. Oil companies will also lose $35.5 billion in tax breaks over the next 10 years.
Some of Obama’s other initiatives include limiting the tax deductions that the wealthy can claim for charitable donations, mortgage payments and local taxes, according to Fox News.
The president’s new increases have drawn the ire of many fiscal conservatives, including several top Republicans in the House.
“This budget features too many new taxes, too much new spending and too much new debt,” said Representative Dave Camp of Michigan, the lead Republican on tax-writing for the House Ways and Means Committee, quoted by the news source.
Through various programs and credits, the current administration will also cut taxes for some workers and other businesses by approximately $330 billion.
Feb
8
2010
OBITUARY FOR COMMON SENSE
This makes sense to me!
An Obituary You Really Must Read.
An Obituary printed in the London Times – Interesting and sadly rather
true.
Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who
has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was,
since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He
will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:
- Knowing when to come in out of the rain;
- Why the early bird gets the worm;
- Life isn’t always fair;
- and maybe it was my fault.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don’t spend more
than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in
charge).
His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but
overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy
charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended
from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for
reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.
Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the
job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly
children.
It declined even further when schools were required to get parental
consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student; but could
not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an
abortion.
Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses;
and criminals received better treatment than their victims.
Common Sense took a beating when you couldn’t defend yourself from a
burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.
Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to
realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in
her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.
Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, by
his wife, Discretion, by his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son,
Reason.
He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers;
I Know My Rights
I Want It Now
Someone Else Is To Blame
I’m A Victim
Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If
you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do
nothing.
Feb
8
2010
The American Conservative Union
February 8, 2010
With a nationwide TV audience, Barack Obama yesterday tried to trick the nation into believing that he has always been open to conservative ideas on health care.
You may have seen his latest ploy.
As the Washington Port reported, before the big game Obama sat down with CBS’s Katie Couric for a live interview aired during the Super Bowl network’s pregame show, an opportunity to reach pigskin fans less than two hours before kickoff.
I suppose that shouldn’t be surprising that Couric, who had a family member previously serving as Chairman of the Virginia Democratic Party, would provide Obama this platform to reach millions.
But what is shocking – truly shocking – is that Couric and other journalists would not force Obama to admit he has been well aware of Republican proposals on health care for months.
Instead, Obama was allowed to sit on live television, speak to the nation, and say he now wanted to know about Republican ideas on health care. He now wants to see those ideas.
Really?
For months Republicans have put forward solutions. In fact, the conservative caucus in the House, the Republican Study Committee, has put forward ideas here for months and months.
Now, Obama says he wants to invite Republicans to the White House, to hear their ideas.
He told Couric and the nation, “Well I think that what I want to do is to look at the Republican ideas that are out there. And I want to be very specific. “How do you guys want to lower costs?”
Well either the President of the United States can’t read, or he is continuing to mislead the public.
Don’t allow Republicans to fall for this ploy.
Even though poll after poll shows the American people do not want government-run health care Obama will not give up.
When will he learn?
Now that ACU and others help encourage voters to turn out who then in turn put Scott Brown in the Senate, filling Ted Kennedy’s seat, he still won’t listen.
Now Obama’s ploy is to have what he is calling a “summit” at the White House, with Republicans, to “discuss” health care.
We don’t believe he wants to discuss anything. We think he wants a political and media platform to continue shoving government-run health care down the throat of the American people.
We don’t want or need our conservatives in Congress to cave in.
Do you remember the photo to the right?
A photo of Republicans waving the Republican plans for health care while Obama stood up in front of Congress and the entire nation basically deriding Republicans for offering no ideas.
For months ACU has been sending you emails showing Republican ideas and giving you and all Americans specific reasons why conservatives opposed Obama’s plans.
However, he does not care. He only wants a political platform to spew his false statements for political gain.
At least Couric pointed out that Obama provided special deals to Senators to try and squeeze his first health care plan through.
Remember Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson and his special deal. Remember Landrieu’s payoff in Louisiana. If that was Obama’s first attempt, what will he now try to offer to specific Republicans to push a plan through?
We cannot allow our children and grandchildren’s future to be gambled away on this risky, government-run health scheme.
Our nation is already billions and billions of dollars in debt. How much further does he want to go?
The Washington Examiner newspaper got it right.
This morning they said, “Obama wants a showdown with Republicans on health care.”
In that showdown we cannot afford to have our Republicans and conservatives crumble under a White House push.
Now more than ever we need to send a message – no government-run health care.
Help us send this message to our conservative leaders on Capitol Hill.
Sincerely,
Dennis Whitfield
ACU Executive Vice President
Former Deputy Secretary for Labor for President Ronald Reagan
Feb
8
2010
The Art of the Lie
February 8, 2010 by Bob Livingston
When my children were growing up I could usually tell when they were lying to me. A subtle fidget, a flicker of the eyes or the pitch of their voice would give them away.
That’s because they were taught from the start that lying was wrong. My wife and I drummed it into them, and they believed it. Since they knew what they were doing was wrong it was difficult for them to pull it off.
I’ve always been pretty good at spotting liars. Not as good as Dr. Cal Lightman from the Fox show Lie to Me; but pretty good. It was a gift that served me well as a reporter.
Of course it’s a lot easier to spot a lying politician today than it used to be. How do you know they’re lying? It’s cliché, but, it’s when their lips are moving.
Did you watch any of the President Barack Obama’s recent State of the Union address? I tried counting his lies but within about 15 minutes I ran out of fingers and toes. No matter, his life is a lie—from his sham birth certificate to his autobiography to his campaign promises to his pledges as President. But the amazing thing is that he does it so effortlessly. And he’s so good at it he’d probably get away with it if those nasty facts didn’t keep getting in the way.
He promised transparency during his campaign, but does everything behind closed doors. He promised healthcare negotiations on C-Span. But negotiations are done in secret. He promised everyone they could keep their doctor, but the public option would end that. He says if someone has another idea he’ll listen, but he shuts dissenters out of the process. He says the Supreme Court overturned 100 years of law, but Justice Samuel Alito says, “Not true.”
Obama also bashed lobbyists. That was right before he invited them to sit in on White House briefings. In his SOTU speech he said: “We face a deficit of trust—deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap, we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue—to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve.”
Hmm. I wonder why there’s a “deficit of trust.” Maybe it’s because of things like his failure to mention that more than 40 ex-lobbyists work in his administration, as the The Washington Examiner reports.
But that’s not all. According to TheHill.com:
The Treasury Department on Thursday morning (the day after the SOTU) invited selected individuals to “a series of conference calls with senior Obama administration officials to discuss key aspects of the State of the Union address.”
The article goes on to say:
A handful of lobbyists told The Hill on Thursday morning that they received the invitations and were planning to call in.
Some lobbyists say they are extremely frustrated with the White House for criticizing them and then seeking their feedback. Others note that Democrats on Capitol Hill constantly urge them to make political donations.
One lobbyist said, “Bash lobbyists, then reach out to us. Bash lobbyists [while] I have received four Democratic invitations for fundraisers.”
And then there’s Senator Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). In a press release issued Jan. 27, he said, “In the upcoming elections, voters will face a choice between Republicans who are standing with Wall Street fat cats, bankers and insurance companies—or Democrats who are working hard to clean up the mess we inherited by putting the people’s interests ahead of the special interests.”
That statement would lead you to believe he opposes standing with Wall Street fat cats, bankers and insurance companies. But two days later, at the DSCC winter retreat in Miami, Menendez and 10 of his fellow senators were entertained by a long list of Wall Street fat cats, bankers and insurance companies who paid around $30,000 each to the campaign coffers of the DSCC, according to Politico.com.
Included in that list are insurance companies like Allstate and Aflac; pharmaceutical manufactures like AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Novartis; financial groups like American Bankers Association, Managed Funds Association and Sallie Mae; large corporations like FedEx, UPS, Ford Motor Co. and Home Depot; and lobbying firms like Quinn Gillespie and Associates, Podesta Group and Heather Podesta and Partners; and an assortment of other big corporations, lobbyists and special interest groups. In all, 129 of these organizations attended at $30,000 each for a total into the DSCC of about $3.87 million. Just for a one-day trip to the beach.
And who can forget that low-life former presidential candidate, John Edwards? According to Byron York in The Washington Examiner, with the National Enquirer set to break a story during the 2007-2008 Democrat presidential primary that Edwards had fathered a child with campaign staffer Reille Hunter, Edwards crafted his own lie.
He encouraged campaign worker Andrew Young to claim the child as his own. This would make it a “one-day story,” Edwards claimed, and would do minimal damage to the campaign. For two more years Edwards would cling to this lie while his marriage to his cancer-stricken wife Elizabeth fell apart and his baby was denied a true father.
It’s certain that lying by politicians is a not a recent phenomenon. We could go back to the beginning of politics and find examples. But here are some recent examples that come to mind:
There was George H.W. Bush’s 1988 proclamation of, “Read my lips. No new taxes.” The following autumn saw Bush proposing a number of tax increases, prompting a headline in the New York Post that read: Read my lips. I lied.
Bill Clinton had his own “Read my lips” moment when he said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” We learned then, for politicians, it depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is, when a lie is being investigated.
George W. Bush had his own credibility problem. He vowed after the 9/11 attacks: “My administration has a job to do and we’re going to do it. We will rid the world of the evil-doers.”
The world apparently ended in the mountains of Tora-Bora, where those calling the shots put a halt to hostilities allowing Osama bin Laden and his surviving thugs to retreat into Waziristan, a desolate lawless region of Pakistan where al-Qaida remains to this day.
Bush’s vow to follow the enemy wherever he was went unfulfilled.
Instead, he focused his energy on Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. While a strong case can be made that there was a need to depose Hussein, placing a greater importance on going there rather seeking out bin Laden and his ghouls in the aftermath of 9/11 demonstrated he lied when he said he wanted bin Laden dead or alive.
Of course, it’s more than likely that bin Laden actually died somewhere along the way and the Bush Administration knew this but wanted to have a bogeyman handy to justify continuing the war. And now the Obama Administration, which seems to enjoy war as much as Bush did, is continuing the charade.
Suffice to say that the only safe course of action is to assume a politician is lying every time he or she speaks. Never, never take one at his word, unless you’re content to believe a lie. They can be judged only on what they’ve done.
Unlike our children, whom we teach from a young age to tell the truth, politicians apparently never learned that lesson. After all, as Seinfeld’s George Costanza character once said: “It’s not a lie if you believe it’s true.”
That’s the philosophy that has allowed politicians to elevate lying to an art form.
Feb
7
2010
FaxDC
February 7, 2010
U.N. gun-ban treaty faces pre-emptive attack
Tell the U.S. Senate to Oppose the “Small Arms Treaty”
FaxDC.com wants to send this urgent and personalized Blast Fax message to all 535 members of the House and Senate for YOU.
Alert: (WND) A gun rights organization has launched a petition effort to build opposition to plans being discussed by U.S. officials and the United Nations that could result in the confiscation and destruction of privately owned firearms inside the U.S.
The online petition, run by officials with the National Association for Gun Rights, offers participants a conduit to tell their U.S. senators a “Small Arms Treaty”‘ being discussed is “nothing more than a massive global gun control scheme, designed to register, ban and confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens.”
Spokesman Luke O’Dell has explained in on online statement that the exact wording of the proposal so far has been kept “under wraps.”
“But looking at previous versions of the U.N. ‘Small Arms Treaty,’ you and I can get a good idea of what’s likely in the works,” he wrote. “Don’t let any of the ‘experts’ lull you to sleep by saying ‘Oh, we have it handled’ or ‘Until you know exactly what’s in the treaty you can’t fight against it.’”
“Judging by Ambassador [John] Bolton’s comments - who certainly knows what to expect from the American-freedom-hating international crowd that infests the U.N. - we are certain the treaty’s going to address the private ownership of firearms,” O’Dell wrote.
In a video posted on the website for the National Rifle Association, Bolton said, “I think it was clear from the outset that the Obama administration would move in this direction. The only thing that’s surprising is that it’s taken this long.”
He said the presentations have portrayed the “Small Arms Treaty” as something to address international arms trade. “But there’s no doubt that the real agenda is domestic firearms control,” he said.
He said there are many references that the only targets would be “illicit” arms.
“That begs the whole question. What’s legal and what’s illegal in a domestic application?” he said.
“Whatever the appearance on the surface, there’s no doubt that domestic firearms control is right at the top of the agenda,” he said.
O’Dell suggested that the new “international” law could bring tougher licensing requirements, programs to confiscate “unauthorized” firearms and even a ban on the private ownership of weapons inside the U.S.
The petition delivers to senators a request to oppose any plans to ratify a U.N. “Small Arms Treaty.”
“The ratification of this treaty would also likely create an international gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation,” it states.
WND reported last fall when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first announced the U.S. had changed its stance and would support negotiations of an Arms Trade Treaty to regulate international gun trafficking.
The Bush administration had opposed it.
The U.S. also at that point joined a nearly unanimous 153-1 U.N. vote to adopt a resolution setting out a timetable on the proposed Arms Trade Treaty, including a U.N. conference to produce a final accord in 2012.
While Clinton called the plan a “crucial national security concern for the United States,” gun rights advocates said it was an attempt under President Obama to sneak gun control into the U.S. without having the issue debated in Congress.
At the time, Brian Wood, disarmament expert for Amnesty International, said in a Bloomberg report the U.S. is the largest conventional arms trader in the world and the unregulated trade of conventional arms “can fuel instability, transnational organized crime and terrorism.”
“All countries participate in the conventional arms trade and share responsibility for the ‘collateral damage’ it produces - widespread death, injuries and human rights abuses,” said Rebecca Peters, director of the International Action Network on Small Arms in an Agence France-Presse interview. “Now finally governments have agreed to negotiate legally binding global controls on this deadly trade.”
But Bob Barr, a former U.S. representative and presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, explained in a separate interview with the NRA how a treaty that looks like it’s all about fighting international crime will necessarily lead to erosion of Second Amendment gun rights:
“Even though [treaty advocates] all say, ‘We are not going to involve domestic laws and the right to keep and bear arms, that won’t be affected by all this,’ that’s nonsense,” Barr said. “There’s no way that if you buy into something like this and a treaty is passed regulating to ensure that firearms transfers internationally don’t fall into the hands of people that the U.N. doesn’t like, there’s no way that that mechanism will work unless you have some form of national regulation and national tracking.”
The effort is just one more of the outreaches launched under Obama that critics fear could lead to additional gun bans. They have expressed concern his nominee to head the Occupational Safety and Health Administration could arbitrarily ban guns across large segments of society as a “job safety” concern.
Also, Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, supported Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns before it was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. And since Obama has been in office, he’s already advocated for a treaty that would require a federal license for hunters to reload their ammunition, has expressed a desire to ban “assault” weapons, has seen a plan to require handgun owners to submit to mental health evaluations and sparked a rush on ammunition purchases with his history of anti-gun positions.
Citizens wishing to speak out on the issue can contact the State Department or the National Rifle Association.
DO NOT BE SILENCED BY ANYONE STAND UP! MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!
TAKE ACTION: Send YOUR blast FAX to ALL 535 Congressman NOW!
To visit FaxDC.com, click here: http://faxdc.com/
To view Your Fax Message, click here: http://faxdc.com/keep_firearms.htm
To Fax Blast Capitol Hill, click here: http://faxdc.com/firearms_order.htm
Be part of the FaxDC.com Army and subscribe to the Auto-Fax Program
$ 25.00 per month at: http://www.faxdc.com/friends.htm
Thank You Patriot! Your friends at FaxDC.com
NOTE: Be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you know who supports saving America and Protecting our Middle Class. Thank you!
Feb
7
2010
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Sunday, February 07, 2010
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 26% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove which gives Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17 (see trends).
Most who watch the Super Bowl will be rooting for the Saints but most think the Colts will win. More than six-out-of-ten Americans will tune in but just 49% of those will be watching the game intensely. Thirty-five percent (35%) say that the commercials are more interesting than the game.
Check out our review of last week’s key polls to see “What They Told Us.”
The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.
Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. That matches the lowest level of overall approval yet measured for this president. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove.
The first review of Scott Rasmussen’s new book said “In Search of Self-Governance promises to be the type of provocative and compelling tome for the decade to come that The Third Wave and The Tipping Point were in decades past.” Larry Sabato calls it a “thought-provoking look at the way We, the People should govern ourselves.” Pat Caddell say it’s a “brilliant and thoughtful essay” that “unmasks the new fault line of our democracy: Mainstream America rising to reassert the supremacy of their sacred right of self governance over a failed Political Class.”
In Search of Self-Governance is available from Rasmussen Reports and at Amazon.com.
(More Below)
Voters continue to trust Republicans more than Democrats on most key issues facing the nation, but the gap is smaller now when it comes to the economy. Forty-six percent (46%) trust the GOP more when it comes to the economy while 42% trust the Democrats more. The American people overwhelmingly reject the basics of Keynesian economics: only 11% believe more deficit spending is needed to spur the economy while 70% say deficit cutting is the answer. As the federal budget debate heats up, just 35% of voters realize that most federal spending goes to just three areas: National Defense, Social Security, and Medicare.
Rasmussen Reports has polled on 2010 Senate races in Nevada, Colorado, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, California, Indiana, Wisconsin, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Connecticut, Illinois, North Carolina and Iowa. Republicans enjoy a seven-point advantage on the Generic Congressional Ballot.
Rasmussen Reports has also released polls on the 2010 governor’s races in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina Wisconsin, and Texas.
Scott Rasmussen has recently had several columns published in the Wall Street Journal addressing how President Obama is losing independent voters , health care reform, the President’s approval ratings, and how Obama won the White House by campaigning like Ronald Reagan. If you’d like Scott to speak at your meeting, retreat, or conference, contact Premiere Speakers Bureau. You can also learn about his favorite place on earth or his time working with hockey legend Gordie Howe.
It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama’s numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That’s because some of the President’s most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote. It is also important to check the details of question wording when comparing approval ratings from different firms.
(More Below)
Rasmussen Reports has been a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own operator-assisted technology (see methodology). Pollsters for Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have cited our “unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy.”
Data from the Washington Post confirms that Rasmussen Reports was well ahead of other media coverage on the Massachusetts Senate race. In the 2009 New Jersey Governor’s race, automated polls tended to be more accurate than operator-assisted polling techniques. On reviewing the state polling results from 2009, Mickey Kaus offered this assessment, “If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious N.Y. Times, go with Rasmussen!” During Election 2008, liberal blogger Nate Silver said that the Rasmussen tracking poll “would probably be the one I’d want with me on a desert island.”
In 2008, Obama won 53%-46% and our final poll showed Obama winning 52% to 46%. While we were pleased with the final result, Rasmussen Reports was especially pleased with the stability of our results. On every single day for the last six weeks of the campaign, our daily tracking showed Obama with a stable and solid lead attracting more than 50% of the vote.
An analysis by Pollster.com partner Charles Franklin “found that despite identically sized three-day samples, the Rasmussen daily tracking poll is less variable than Gallup.” During Election 2008, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll was the least volatile of all those tracking the race.
We also have provided a summary of our 2008 state-by-state Presidential results for your review.
In 2004 George W. Bush received 50.7% of the vote while John Kerry earned 48.3%. Rasmussen Reports was the only firm to project both candidates’ totals within half a percentage point by projecting that Bush would win 50.2% to 48.5%. (see our 2004 results).
See also our 2008 state results for Senate and governor. See 2006 results for Senate and governor.
Pollster.com founder Mark Blumenthal noted that “independent analyses from the National Council on Public Polls, the American Association for Public Opinion Research, the Pew Research Center, the Wall Street Journal and FiveThirtyEight.com have all shown that the horse-race numbers produced by automated telephone surveys did at least as well as those from conventional live-interviewer surveys in predicting election outcomes.”
Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error—for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters–is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Premium Members.
Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large (see methodology). Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. While partisan affiliation is generally quite stable over time, there are a fair number of people who waver between allegiance to a particular party or independent status. Over the past five years, the number of Democrats in the country has increased while the number of Republicans has decreased.
Our baseline targets are established based upon separate survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews) and targets are updated monthly. Currently, the baseline targets for the adult population are 35.6% Democrats, 33.1% Republicans, and 31.2% unaffiliated. Likely voter samples typically show a slightly smaller advantage for the Democrats.
A review of last week’s key polls is posted each Saturday morning. Other stats on Obama are updated daily on the Rasmussen Reports Obama By the Numbers page. We also invite you to review other recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls. To get a sense of longer-term trends, check out our month-by-month review of the President’s numbers.